Slashdot Mirror

What the hell do you expect from a bunch of GNU/Faggots that would rather rim each other in the shower than run a quality website? Bunch of liberal, Godless, motherfucking faggots.

that's right. there is now some speculative rumour that the whoreabull greed/fear based megaslothians, upon capitollist hill, are being cloned, without yOUR/their knowledge.

then, sometime in the night, the originull Godless pandering FUDgeSucker(tm) is replaced buy its culloan(tm).

then, the ?pr? scriptdead doughbull, spews the same fraudulent payper liesense stock markup blather, daze after daze, but does NOT require the constaNT flow of dirtIE monIE, to .continue IT's whoreabull MiSalliegIEnce. kewl huh? moron what they do with yOUR monIE all the time.

eyecon0meter(gimp) technology.

secure? as it can be.

buy hour wreckconning (the cite's DOWn right now), slightly more
than 60% of US, remain in some state of deniability, regarding the
larcenious FUDgePacking, that's been foistered upon US, buy whoreabull Godless
stock markup FraUDS, & continue to bulleave, that buy sum write
of ?pr? hypenosys, we'll wake up tomorrow, & IT'll all be all right, again?

well, buy referencing eyecon0meter readings from previous illusions, IT
has been determined that these lowLIEfs of bullshipping, canknot be maintained,
mostly due to the billonlyUS unnaturalness, of the hole thing.

although readings are updated frequeNTly, the bottom LIEn numberrs, are virtually
unchanged, since the holesale bullshipping 'stopped', buy odor of yOUR fuderal "gov't.".

so, wake up j., IT's not sum saycrud kode you seek. IT's what you DO with IT.

weed like to see that figure DOWn to around 40 buy nitefall. you go j..

IT's NOT "business" as use-you-all anymore. tell 'em robbIE.

see also: va.msn.?net?, ticker: (BULLAST)?

whois this guise 'servers'/ideNTitIE?

billwg - 04:00pm Mar 30, 2002 EST (#759 of 762)

BTW, what has Ramond and Stallings and Torvalds done for the world lately?

Regardless of the chants of the unwashed linuxers, this MS Office system works pretty well and all of the large companies have become dependent on it and many require that their suppliers accomodate it with forms of their own. Some smurf twitching around alone with StarOffice may be able to avoid using MS Office, but no big account is going to be able to do it. It seems to me that all the hot stuff in linux is just making it work like Windows. That doesn't seem to be necessary, since we've got such a fine version of Windows already and don't really need another one!

from up on wall street of deceit. screw them scurvy ba$tards. most say that hangin's way too good for the Godless hucksters.

most of US, will be much better off, if they're allowed to sink into the tarpits, without interveNTion from yOUR fuderal gov't...

help put an end to stock markup accouNTing (we will go) frauds, continue to vote with yOUR wallet.

look for: va.msn.?net?, ticker: (VAST)?

tell 'em robbIE.

I have to ask you a question, since you seem to be an American and native English speaker. How is it you cannot spell "troops" and "there" correctly?

And to the semantic content of your post: If you really want to assess the historic purpose of American troops in Germany after World War II, the following should be enlightening to you (or at the very least expose your hypocrisy). In the early 1950s, the Soviets offered to withdraw from East Germany, provided the Americans did the same from West Germany, and Germany was re-established as a neutral, non-aligned country under an elected government. If the real purpose of the Americans had been to "free" the Germans from Soviet occupation, surely they would have at least used this offer as a start for negotations. However the offer was dismissed by the Americans without hesitation, because it would mean the withdrawal of their own forces.

You can doubt the sincerity of the Soviet offer, certainly there was precedent for their government being dishonest. But the historical record suggests otherwise: An identical offer was made by the Soviets with regard to Austria, which was also in the Soviet occupation zone following World War II, and this was accepted: Austria became independent as a neutral, democratic state. In this case, since no part of Austria was under American occupation to begin with, there was nothing for the Americans to lose under this arrangement, so they were glad to accept it.

The fact that American troops remain in Germany, and elsewhere in Western Europe, more than a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union, should alone be perfectly valid evidence that the American government had motives other than protecting Europeans from "godless Communnism" to begin with.

IEaaaggghhh !@#$%

enough with all the Godless corepirate payper liesense stock markup fudgepacking already. /.'s going on my foems list right away.

see also: va.msn.?net? ticker: (VAST) bullast?

You're the one who's being short-sighted here. Where is this 'saved money' going? Granted, it's not going into the pockets of Microsoft, but it's not being distributed into the public pockets. It's held within the company itself. If it's a good company that's saving money, so be it... but if it's another one of these godless corporations that engages in dehumanizing business practices, would you consider yourself 'successful' if you saved them a million dollars just so they have an added weapon of capital against their competitors?

Like - would you want to save Wal-Mart millions of dollars? A company that thrives on eliminating local variety? Putting Ma and Pop shops out of business?

Giving away free software is like blindly giving away guns... you're not changing the world for better or worse. You're just throwing some tool out there that has the potential to change it period.

I think it's ridiculous that you free software developers don't use your skills for your own benefits. You're all bitching about being unemployed now, but it's really your own faults. If you produce software that a company would pay you to write, and make it available for free, what motivation do they have for hiring you? Maybe it's not an issue for you. MAYBE money isn't important to you.That's fine, but you're fucking it up for the rest of us who NEED money to SURVIVE. For every developer on an open source project there is another developer who could be getting paid for the same thing.

Spare me this moralistic "I do what I love and make the world a better place" bullshit. The money that should be going back into the development community is being stuffed into the pockets of CEOs and MBA idiots. You're inadvertantly empowering these shallow business morons over us.

It's a shame that this community doesn't know what power it has over world. If we unionized in some form or another, we could carry some serious sway in the way things are run in the marketplace, our country, and the world. But no, we're all too fucking geeky to even desire such things. Not having got what we wanted, we convince ourselves that we no longer have the desire. Rather than going out and picking up picking up the prime grade women, we sit in our caves writing "free software", the profits of which go into the pocket of some corporate stiff... who rolls up to the bar in a Mercedes and gets first dibs on these chicks, and looks down on us like a high school jock would a chess club member. Meanwhile, we've PUT him in this position!

Call me a troll, whatever. I just think that this "free software" is some sort of voluntary martyrdom when it really doesn't have to be. If you do good work, don't be ashamed to profit from it, and don't be ashamed to ask for money for it. After all, if the money is going to end up in someone's pocket, wouldn't you rather it be your own?

the title says it all. tell 'em robbIE.

look for: va.msn.net, ticker: (VAST)?

the rode ahead? looks LIEk it's littered with Godless greed/fear based liesense peddlers, right now.

I'll admit Ray Harryhausen is a legend in the animation business, and Tom Baker (the best Doctor Who of all time) playing the villian was a huge bonus. And I don't so much mind these references to Black Magic, demons, incantation and the like. Not to mention belly dancing...

But this Allah stuff? It wouldn't be prudent for them to grow up without a rabid xenophobic view of everyone else's beliefs.

With the resurgance of nationalism, I should be able to find something that shows Arabs as Godless heathen terrorists. Any American "action film" should do, unless they've been digitally editing stuff out, like in Back to the Future.

It's satire, for crying out loud!

First let's deal with the whole "read a book" thing. Do you honestly believe that he has never read a book? It would be easier to have a decent discussion if you would refrain from being insulting. From my perspective the argument is that what some would choose to see as theory, some are reporting as almost-fact. As long as we are limited by our own imperfections (ego, arrogance, the instruments for measurement that were designed by imperfect humans), all will remain theory. And we will be limited to theory for a long time, as in possibly forever. Both camps in this discussion should keep their minds firmly open. True, it's less comfortable, but unless you are responsible for the creation of the universe, you must be prepared to have someone else refute your set of beliefs. That means even if it's the godless secular humanists or the backward creationists. If I remember correctly, the original issue many had was with the very unspecific period that was cited, and the supposed accuracy that surrounded the claim. I'd have to say that it was simply irresponsible, and rather egotistical. Scientists, and the people who report on their activities are only human. Darn.

you go robbIE. X marks the splat.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms."

after dialing feverishly, we see only wan web entity (figure a.) that has evolved significantly enough to survive the ongooing fud0cide buy Godless corepirate larcenists.

after the spinning stops, look for: va.msn.net, ticker symbol: (VAST)

"Free access to public information by the citizen. Permanence of public data. Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms."

after ?much? drooling re-search, we see only wan species (figure a.) that has evolved significantly enough to survive the ongooing fud0cide buy Godless corepirate larcenists.

in 250 billyun years? look for: va.msn.net, ticker symbol: (VAST)

You should. You really don't want me to get into the subject of biblical contradictions and forgery. Not even the most devout theologians assert the authenticity of much of the New and Old Testament any longer.

Do you know what the majority of those scrolls were?

No, and neither do you. They were destroyed, probably during Theophilus' time.

Except by you, you mean. If anyone is as revisionistic as you seem to think the Christians were, it's modern anti-Christian scholars.

In no century has Christianity regained as much ground in scholarship as in the 20th. You should read Norman Cantor's "Inventing the Middle Ages":

"Therefore, Leo XIII's successor, Pope Pius X, put on the brakes heavily to stop the incipient intellectual and spiritual revolution that was loosely called Catholic modernism. He condemned it as heresy in 1907. The work of the most distinguished Catholic historian of the early church, Louis Duchesne, was unembarrassedly put on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1912, even though Father Duchesne continued to hold a senior position in a clerical institution in Rome until his death in 1922. A chill descended on Catholic historical scholarship, and repressive in- tellectual guidelines were promulgated that were not extensively withdrawn until the 1960s. They have been partly reimposed, with respect to the teaching of theology and sexual ethics, under John Paul II in the 1980s.

"As a result of these starts and stops in the modernization of Catholic culture, rigid codes readily emerged for the way Catholic scholars were supposed to interpret the Middle Ages. It had to be a very defensive approach to the church's role. An extremely positive view of the continuity of a benignly arrayed papal power was prescribed. Catholics could write about the Middle Ages, but only in ways that made the modern church and papacy, held to be the direct continuator of the medieval institution, look very good. Catholic scholars in their invention of the Middle Ages were not to say things that would bring the church and papacy at any time into disrepute or to raise questions about the absolute authority of the papacy or universal ap- plicability of canon law, the merit of religious orders, or the wisdom and learning of medieval Schoolmen. In short, nothing bad about the Middle Ages was to be articulated so as to give comfort to critics of the Catholic Church."

Cantor describes in detail how this new historical tradition was created and how it permeates, to this day, much of historical scholarship about the medieval period. He's professor emeritus of history, sociology and comparative literature at New York University.

Please don't tell me you're using Democritus as the paragon of modern science. Yes, he was an atomist, but his atoms were NOTHING like the atoms of modern atomic theory. Just because he called them atoms and we call them atoms doesn't mean that he was right, and anyone who rejects him is wrong. His atomic theory was an absolute joke.

Democritus correctly realized that the attributes of matter are the attributes of interaction among atoms. He correctly saw them as the smallest building blocks of matter. His theory was logically consistent and not to be surpassed for many centuries. To call it an "absolute joke" is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance.

And a "populated universe"? Where exactly is your evidence of a populated universe? Oh, right, there is none.

Our observations about the universe make the hypothesis of a populated universe (whether intelligently or not is another question) virtually inevitable, as the contrary hypothesis requires the postulation of too many assumptions (Ockham's Razor). The microbiological evidence from neighbouring planets is already fairly strong as well.

Serious (non-bigoted) scholars recognize Christian scholarship as in the tradition of true modern scholarship.

You mean like Roger Bacon, who explained in detail how to catch and ride a dragon? Or your beloved Augustine with his sophisticated demonology? From W.G. Soldan's "Geschichte der Hexenprozesse" (translation mine):

According to Augustine, since the beginning of the world there have been two empires predestined by God and coming true through history, the "civitas Dei", to which all good people and angels belong, and the "civitas Diaboli", which covers the complete demon world. The latter one also includes the "civitas terrena" of Rome with the cult of demons ruling within it. This demon empire, this "civitas Diaboli", still exists, but the church has defeated it (3). - The demons are beings that possess an aerial body (corpus aerium) and therefore they have an inconceivable sensory precision (acrimonia sensus) and quickness of movements (celeritas motus).

(1) "Athanasius". de incarnatione verbi Dei (Basel, 1604, p. 42); "Cyrillus", contra Juhanum Lib. Vl. (Paris, 1572, p. 608).

(2) "Eusebius", Histor. eccles. VII, 17 and "Lactanz", Instit. IV, 27.

(3) Cf. A. Dorner: `Augustinus`, sein theologisches System und seine religionsphilosophische Anschauung (Berl. 1873) p. 97, 299ff., 313.

p80: In addition, by the long duration of their lives they have obtained an experience which a human could never gain in his short lifetime. This "natura aerii corporis" allows the demons to predict future events and to do miraculous things. As the people have recognized superhuman abilities in the demons, they have regarded them as gods and worshiped them with a cult (1). This cult is paganism. - The demons do, for example, have the ability to cause diseases, to pollute the air and to motivate the godless people to do evil deeds. They do this by entering the people who are susceptible because of their ungodliness. They easily manage to achieve this without notice because of their aerial bodies. During the procedure, they mix their thoughts into those of the people (2).

These are basic ideas of Augustine's demonology. For him, the heathen mythology is not based on imagination but on reality. Therefore he explains, for instace, the eternal light in the temple of Venus, which was not harmed by any thunderstorm, with a demon named Venus who either created the impression of a burning light or who actually let the light burn (3). What was told about Circe would be unbelievable by itself, but there were still people today reporting similar things. To support this claim, Augustine states that he has learned in Italy that there were landladies who knew how to turn the incoming travellers into draft animals with the help of cheese they gave them to eat and how to turn them back into humans after they had performed the work imposed upon them (4). Therefore, Augustine was familiar with the idea of animal transformation.

Do you want me to go into the subject of Christian "medicine"?

Hypatia was not a philosopher, as far as we can tell. What we know about her was that she edited and compiled mathematical works, and that she was pretty good at it. Anyway, she was murdered by fanatical monks, not even close to being representative of Christians of her day. Rule #1 of debate: never use fringe particulars to prove a universal. You only end up making yourself look silly. Hypatia doesn't help your argument one iota.

Nonsense, nonsense and more nonsense. Even the revisionist Dzielska calls Hyptia a philosopher, as do all contemporary sources, such as Socrates Scholasticus:

"There was a woman at Alexandria named Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, who made such attainments in literature and science, as to far surpass all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the school of Plato and Plotinus, she explained the principles of philosophy to her auditors, many of whom came from a distance to receive her instructions. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner, which she had acquired in consequence of the cultivation of her mind, she not unfrequently appeared in public in presence of the magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in going to an assembly of men. For all men on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue admired her the more."

The monks who murdered her were in the direct employ of Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria; his personal Christian Sturmabteiling. Hypatia was murdered for her public lectures, and John of Nikiu calls her a witch:

"And in those days there appeared in Alexandria a female philosopher, a pagan named Hypatia, and she was devoted at all times to magic, astrolabes and instruments of music, and she beguiled many people through (her) Satanic wiles. And the governor of the city honored her exceedingly; for she had beguiled him through her magic. And he ceased attending church as had been his custom."

The earlier remains of "idolatry" were of course destroyed by Theophilus during his storm of the Serapeum and the destruction of the other pagan temples. The murder of Hypatia was consistent with Christian policy of the time, which laid the foundations of later anti-scientism and witchhunts.

But I don't want to omit the Christian perspective on the matter: The History Of Hypatia, A most Impudent School-Mistress of Alexandria: Murder'd and torn to Pieces by the Populace, In Defence of Saint Cyril and the Alexandrian Clergy.

No they don't! That's just bad logic. Just because there have been a few large scale examples of that happening, it doesn't mean that one is causation of the other.

That's a distortion of the facts. There haven't just been "a few large scale examples of that happening". The reality, as I already pointed out, was that there was no example of the opposite happening. Rather than pointing out a few small examples of communist dictatorships, I said that I could not think of one that DID NOT have a totalitarian government. You furnished no example to refute that.

I liked the people like me part! Who are you grouping together with me? The commies? Well, sorry, I'm not one. I'm just a bit more prepared to examine other ideas than the ones I am fed during my upbringing, i.e. breaking from the "party line". Sorry for being an individual!

Again, a distortion. What is more likely, that by "you people" I meant "godless communists" or "people making the same exact argument that you were"? You assume that the other side is insulting you in your responses because you wish that I had just given you the old "oh, fuck you, you dirty commie" response, presumably because you would've handled that better and been more equipped to refute it.

A vote for a third party is generally a waste of time, and 9 times out of 10, people vote for the opposing canditate of someone they don't like.

Right there, you refute your own argument. People can vote for a third party. In fact, in most of the ballots I've seen, there are at least five people from five parties for each seat. That's democracy and the fact that the people don't want to vote for a third party does not change that. They have a choice and just because they keep sticking with what they've got doesn't mean that that's their only choice.

Often for silly reasons, such as their haircut, looks, or how their parents voted.

Again, you assume that other people are stupid because it helps your argument. Can you furnish any example of someone coming out an ballot booth and telling a journalist or pollster "I voted for him because I like his haircut" or "That's what daddy told me"? Or do you just assume that everyone that doesn't agree with you is "diluted"?

Hardly a great advertisment for the western way. Capitalism seems to work to a point, but the rich are just getting far too rich, and the poor are getting far to poor at the moment for me to agree with you that it "works".

If the rich are just getting richer and the poor are getting so much poorer, then I'd think that you would have a better example of that than the same quote that communists have been using throughout the last century. You make very sensationalist statements without backing them up.

PETA and organizations like it exist because their founders want to impose their view on everyone else. They became so detached from the process of food production that they believed the silly little preschool stories about animals being their friends and associated them on the same level as humans. They are nutcases that if allowed to set a precedent, will reduce human liberties to what a select few decide is appropriate, essentially a godless forced religion that would ignore free will and millenia of human development. They improve nothing.

that some computers are "not working". who wants their kids to grow up to be Godless greed/fear based liesense peddlers?

being the souless provider of total BS, megasloth.con had ALL the rights to Godless deception, & larcenious FraUD.

now IT appears that robbIE et AL is challenging them to a duo.

whereas, the "editors" write beautiful storIEs, in praise of ill eagle, Godless deceptive payper liesense stock markup FraUD FUDgePackers, & IT is responded to with many beautifully worded (no MiSpelled words) accolades, buy ?pr? shills. what a wonderful wwworld IT's become(ing)?

that's ok dough robbIE, we think you're innocent, but you should come out about it.